Standardizing save DCs. Is it a bad idea?

[frogglesmash]

Would it be a bad idea to have the save DCs for all abilities (i.e. class features, spells, psionic powers, utterances, etc.) be determined the same way monster determine the DCs for most of their abilities i.e. 10+0.5HD+relevant ability modifier? In other words, would doing this just make casters even better, or would it also help some other classes/PrCs be more useful?

[Honest Tiefling]

I think it would favor tier 1 casters. Replacing power/spell level .5 x HD won't make much of a huge difference, since it is usually the same for the cleric/wizard. (At level 1, they get a hit of -1 DC, but it seems to balance out after that until they reach 20th level). Sorcerer and other delayed classes suffer a scootch.

What really matters is 1) Cheesemongering to increase spell/power level won't work anymore, which might be a good or a bad thing. 2) All spells have the same DC, so using save or sucks from lower levels suddenly becomes far better, and even the sorcerer can enjoy better DCs. I would imagine that the Bard would enjoy this, since they don't get higher level spells and enjoy a lot of illusion/mind affecting spells. Also, it makes multi-classing a little better, as those levels add to the DC. I wonder if this change would actually make the mystic theurge worthwhile?

I might not be the best at theorycraft, but I would suggest this change under the following conditions:
1) No one wants to play CoDzilla or God-Wizard, so making lesser tier casters/prestige classes more viable is important, especially the bard. Heck, this change might be great if you ban all full casters. I would still worry that Bards might get out of hand since they have really good DCs now.
2) You have people with issues with math, paying attention, or rules and need to streamline a few things. Not having to recalculate that for every spell might help out a few folks.
3) Everyone agrees to leave behind ways to gain more HD. I don't know how it's possible, but someone's already figured it out.
4) You'll need some way to balance this out for mundanes/lesser players. The monsters will probably be enjoying this on their spell-casting, which means that their weak saving throws are going to be really bad for everyone.
5) Figure out if you want Warlocks or not. I sense that the temptation to have high DCs on normally low DC invocations will be great.

[NichG]

I think this would save bookkeeping, and pretty much not make a noticeable difference in power levels in most cases. The stuff that makes casters powerful doesn't have to do with saving throws, it has to do with versatility, so changing the numbers a bit basically won't change the overall situation.

[Pex]

It would mean at higher levels spellcasters would still use low level slots for attack spells. That's not a bad thing in concept, but it does mean they retain offensive power for longer than they do normally. Whether that's a good thing or bad thing is a matter of taste. However, where it will hurt is dealing with low saving throws. How vulnerable will a 12th level fighter be to Hold Person when the DC is 21 from an opposing same level spellcaster with 20 in his casting stat? It would have been DC 17 normally. When it comes to low saves that 4 point difference is a big deal.

At high character level low level attack spells are for the mooks if you want a good chance of them working. Your idea makes them equally vulnerable as the high level spells against the Lieutenants and BBEGs. The question you need to ask yourself is "Are you ok with that?".

[NichG]

Well, think of it this way - with standardized saves the caster might choose to use Hold Person instead of Dominate Person, but with scaling saves they would more likely just use the higher level slot. Probably the best would be inverse-scaling saves. Save DC = 19-spell level. That way, intrinsically more severe effects are also easier to resist, so there's a real tradeoff involved.

But I think in practice the numbers are not going to make a huge difference. The caster could use Hold Person, but they could also just use Web at one spell level lower, which hits multiple targets and has a pretty severe effect even if people make the save successfully.

[Fizban]

The vast majority of non-caster abilities that have DCs already use that formula, or similar (such as 10+PrC level+ability, which caps faster). Those few that don't are usually terrible to begin with, the non-scaling DCs merely more evidence that the writers didn't know what they were doing (or were writing before anyone knew what they were doing). So making all spells and abilities scale the same just makes low level spells better and doesn't really help anything else important. Casters 1, everyone else meh.

[Nuada99]

Casters 1, everyone else meh.

I think this is spot-on. Making that 1st level sleep spell a threat at every level, without forcing the already-(over-)powered casters to at least throw a spell focus or metamagic feat at it to improve it, is just not good game theory.

I like simplifying the game as much as the next guy. Having a different saving throw for each spell level is a lot of book-keeping, but that's part of the job when you're a caster.

As previously mentioned, the non-caster classes who could actually use a boost from something like this are likely already calculating their saves using this method, so this is no boost at all for them.

At the end of the day, if the problem you're trying to solve is "D&D is too mathy", I don't think this is the right approach. I would definitely make (new) players aware that caster classes require considerably more bookkeeping and number-crunching than many other classes do. On the other hand, if you're trying to solve the "I wish casters were EVEN BETTER, and melee HAD NO CHANCE IN THIS WORLD, BWAH-HAH-HA-HAH!" problem, then go for it! :smile: (But, in all seriousness, don't.)

[stack]

The 3PP Spheres of Power casting system for pathfinder works this way (uses CL/2 instead of HD). I like writing down one or two DCs and using them for everything.

[Beheld]

The only things it does are:

1) Makes book keeping easier.
2) Makes lower level spells have the same DC as higher level spells.

Since all other saving throws already use that formula except non monster poisons.

Both of those are good things. Obviously easier book keeping is a plus, but look at what actually happens when you make lower level attack spells one the same RNG:

Wizards can fight for longer each day, more encounters, but to do so they have to give up buffs in exchange for lower level attack spells.

Result 1: You fight more encounters in a day. Result: Probably good for all the players and DM, because they will enjoy the game more, not having to take as many arbitrary stop and camp breaks.

Result 2: Wizards are less powerful in every single fight of the day, because they have fewer buffs, from memorizing more attack spells. Good for party balance.

Result 3: In whichever fights Wizards use lower level attack spells, they are weaker than they would have been before using only high level ones. Good for party balance.

This is literally a Wizard nerf, because the obvious result of Wizards being able to fight more encounters is that the party will fight more encounters.

It just looks like a Wizard buff before you think about it.

[Andezzar]

I think this is spot-on. Making that 1st level sleep spell a threat at every level, without forcing the already-(over-)powered casters to at least throw a spell focus or metamagic feat at it to improve it, is just not good game theory.Sleep and its cousin deep slumber still have a hard cap. You can't affect more than 4 (10) HD of creatures. For other spells however this is absolutely true. Why would you prepare high level spells, when you can incapacitate areas of creatures with glitterdust or something similar. The low spell level also means that metamagic is an option for those spells earlier.

As for not having as many slots for buffs that is only true if the casters actually prepare more offensive spells than with the normal rules. The question is whether they would need more such spells, because some low level spells are quite effective for a long time, if you remove their built in drawback (low DC).

[Troacctid]

5e did this and it worked fine there.

This is actually a much bigger deal for half casters than full casters. If a Wizard needs a high save DC, she can just cast a high-level spell. If a Hexblade needs a high save DC, she's up a creek without a paddle.

[Kelb_Panthera]

5e did this and it worked fine there.

Different game, different numbers.


This is actually a much bigger deal for half casters than full casters. If a Wizard needs a high save DC, she can just cast a high-level spell. If a Hexblade needs a high save DC, she's up a creek without a paddle.

There'd be something to that if those classes used any spells where the save actually matters at all. Even the spells that have <X> save negates or <X> spell for partial are almost all harmless or have a decent effect on a passed save and they don't have many of the latter to begin with.

[stack]

Non-9th level casters are incentivized not to use save based spells at later levels. This changes that considerably. How many paladin's look twice at spells that need saves to work?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Non-9th level casters are incentivized not to use save based spells at later levels. This changes that considerably. How many paladin's look twice at spells that need saves to work?

How many paladin spells need a save to work? According to a certain database that has a number of dnd tools, of the 123 spells that are negated with a save, 85 of those are marked as (harmless) or (object). This leaves 38 of the 287 paladin spells that are probably save-based attacks and this does not account for the fact that the list includes repeat entries. So around 13~ish percent of paladin spells are less than applicable against a foe's strong save at higher levels.

I'm freakin' cryin' over here. :smallamused:

[weckar]

This would allow a mostly martial character to pick up a few low level spells and not suck at using them. I'm all for that.

[stack]

There are ways to get off list spells. The low saves also impact design; the spell list would likely look different written under a scaling base save system.

[ericgrau]

5e did it and it made things simpler, but its entire spell system is a little different. It does prevent some crazy optimization in 3.5e, but still raises DCs on average. If you want to do it for 3.5 I'd simply standardize it to 8 + 1/2 HD + ability mod. That way it's no longer a boost, makes things simpler, and yeah it's nice for (barely) encouraging multi-classing too.

[squiggit]

It's definitely a power boost for casters and casters definitely don't need a power boost.

But at the same time it's one that theoretically might not be a bad thing. As it stands save forcing spells depreciate in value as you level up because of the level based DC. Such a change keeps them relevant longer, which is arguably a good thing.

It also makes spellcaster dips and other similar things that give limited access to low level spells more appealing.

[Honest Tiefling]

It's definitely a power boost for casters and casters definitely don't need a power boost.

But at the same time it's one that theoretically might not be a bad thing. As it stands save forcing spells depreciate in value as you level up because of the level based DC. Such a change keeps them relevant longer, which is arguably a good thing.

This is why I think it would make for a nice trade off for casters if you needed some major nerfs to keep the characters in line. Many save or sucks shut down, but don't kill an enemy and might work well with team tactics. I would definitely consider this option if you have a lot of players that love to play mages to set everything on fire.

[Kelb_Panthera]

There are ways to get off list spells.

There are better ways to spend build resources on partial casters. Bare-minimum, you're talking arcane disciple on a hexblade and for paladins and rangers you're eating class levels or multiple feats. It's just not worth it, even if you did implemenet this idea.


The low saves also impact design; the spell list would likely look different written under a scaling base save system.

I'm sure it would. We're not talking about some other system or rebuilding this one from scratch, though. As it stands, the proposed idea is nothing but a boost to the casters that don't need it.

Even low-level spells -with- level appropriate DC's aren't going to have the same impact as high-level spells. Blasters -would- get a boost but blasting spells tend to be hard-capped and the best of those spells don't offer a save anyway. BFC is only partially effected since area denial and imposing tactical condition changes (think fogs) are already things. This only acts as a solid boon to SoD's; spells that are generally regarded as unfun.

If it wasn't clear yet, I don't think the proposed change is terribly helpful in any good way. At least not by itself.

[Troacctid]

There are better ways to spend build resources on partial casters. Bare-minimum, you're talking arcane disciple on a hexblade and for paladins and rangers you're eating class levels or multiple feats. It's just not worth it, even if you did implemenet this idea.
Paladins don't have a ton of stuff, but off the top of my head, Hexblades have Charm Person, and Rangers have Entangle. Those are some premier 1st level spells right out of the box. Boosting those DCs would be a decent buff for them. And then there's the Spellthief, which has access to like half the Sorcerer/Wizard list, so that's nice.

[Pex]

5e did this and it worked fine there.

This is actually a much bigger deal for half casters than full casters. If a Wizard needs a high save DC, she can just cast a high-level spell. If a Hexblade needs a high save DC, she's up a creek without a paddle.

Actually there's a flaw. Because every ability score is a saving throw and you can't improve them all while spellcasters can improve their casting stat as you gain levels you actually become statistically worse at some saving throws, which is something new to the game.

[NichG]

It feels like there's a systematic issue with the way we discuss D&D 3.5 homebrew - that is to say, everything is judged on the basis of what it does to wizard vs the rest of the world, as if that particular issue is the only reason to change anything and any given piece of homebrew must fix that problem or its not worth talking about.

But, there are so, so many pieces of homebrew and custom campaign structures and so on out there to fix that problem already, I think we should just consider it solvable and move on. That is to say, if you're bothered by something giving +5% advantage to wizards over where they were before, you would presumably have already taken steps like saying 'T3 only campaign!' to fix the 2000% advantage they had before this bit of homebrew slightly altered it. So I'd like to try to move on to treat things on their own merits under the assumption that if caster/mundane balance is a problem for someone, they will go and shop around for one of the hundreds of solutions that are out there already. Otherwise, we end up freezing out a lot of ideas that do have merits of their own because it incidentally happens to mildly perturb the existing hugely unbalanced thing in some way, and we suddenly spend all our effort trying to figure out which direction that perturbation was in.

For example, what if we talk about this piece of homebrew in the context of a T3-only campaign?

[Fizban]

This is literally a Wizard nerf, because the obvious result of Wizards being able to fight more encounters is that the party will fight more encounters.

It just looks like a Wizard buff before you think about it.
Well, only if the wizard actually takes "advantage" of it. It is a good point though, if your wizard players aren't married to buffing themselves then getting them to stretch more encounters with low-tier spells thanks to the DC buff does make for a stealth nerf.

This is actually a much bigger deal for half casters than full casters. If a Wizard needs a high save DC, she can just cast a high-level spell. If a Hexblade needs a high save DC, she's up a creek without a paddle.
Hadn't thought about that either, partial casters would absolutely love this.

I'll change my summary: Casters ?, partial-casters 2, other stuff still meh.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Paladins don't have a ton of stuff, but off the top of my head, Hexblades have Charm Person, and Rangers have Entangle. Those are some premier 1st level spells right out of the box. Boosting those DCs would be a decent buff for them. And then there's the Spellthief, which has access to like half the Sorcerer/Wizard list, so that's nice.

Charm is for mooks anyway. It's hard-countered by protection from <X> on anyone that matters.

Entangle still slows down anyone trying to move through it and forces a save every round until it succeeds or the enemy moves out of the area. It's a strong spell even -with- a crap save. It'd be a fight-ender if it had a top-tier save. It already is for the druid when he gets it and for several levels thereafter.

[Nifft]

Hmm. How would this work for magic item effect DCs?

If it's something like your wands (etc.) use 10 + 1/2 HD + Cha bonus, then Rogues / Bards / Sorcs / Warlocks just got a whole lot more interesting.

Maybe your magic weapon effect DCs (e.g. Mace of Disruption or Arrow of Slaying) use 10 + 1/2 HD + (Str or Dex). Warrior-types might become a bit more relevant.

I think I like this idea.

[Beheld]

How many paladin spells need a save to work? According to a certain database that has a number of dnd tools, of the 123 spells that are negated with a save, 85 of those are marked as (harmless) or (object).

Disintegrate is marked as (object). Your criteria is non ideal.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Disintegrate is marked as (object). Your criteria is non ideal.

A) I did qualify the statement with "probably" and only 9 of those are marked as (object) rather than (harmless).

B) Disintegrate is not on any of the partial caster lists unless you count duskblade amongst them.

[Beheld]

A) I did qualify the statement with "probably" and only 9 of those are marked as (object) rather than (harmless).

Harmless includes all the spells that do damage half to undead. Probably not others that matter. But you should probably just include the object tags if there are only 9.


B) Disintegrate is not on any of the partial caster lists unless you count duskblade amongst them.

Well, obvious Duskblade counts, but the point was that Object tagged spells can also effect creatures, so there is no reason to exclude them based on that tag.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Harmless includes all the spells that do damage half to undead. Probably not others that matter. But you should probably just include the object tags if there are only 9.

The only spells marked as harmless that are harmful to undead are the cure spells. There are -maybe- a handful of other spells marked as (harmless) that aren't buffs or negative status removal spells in the whole game. It's an -excellent- metric for filtering out non-attack spells.

Similarly, very few (object) tagged spells are useable as attacks against constructs and undead or are attacks in general. None of the 9 paladin spells tagged with (object) are attacks. Mind, that's (object) without harmless, not (harmless, object).

Throwing (harmless, object) into the filter actually shows 16 more spells that I didn't include in the prior post (all buffs) reducing the number of attack spells that offer a save to negate even further, only 22 such spells, and this still doesn't account for spells repeated in multiple sources.


Well, obvious Duskblade counts, but the point was that Object tagged spells can also effect creatures, so there is no reason to exclude them based on that tag.

There is plenty of reason to exclude that tag. The vast majority of spells that have the (object) tag are so tagged because they -only- affect objects. There's no way to parse the filter for corner cases like disintegrate which, BTW, is fort partial, not negated by a save, which would've disincluded it from the search in the first place.

[Beheld]

The only spells marked as harmless that are harmful to undead are the cure spells. There are -maybe- a handful of other spells marked as (harmless) that aren't buffs or negative status removal spells in the whole game. It's an -excellent- metric for filtering out non-attack spells.

Similarly, very few (object) tagged spells are useable as attacks against constructs and undead or are attacks in general. None of the 9 paladin spells tagged with (object) are attacks. Mind, that's (object) without harmless, not (harmless, object).

Throwing (harmless, object) into the filter actually shows 16 more spells that I didn't include in the prior post (all buffs) reducing the number of attack spells that offer a save to negate even further, only 22 such spells, and this still doesn't account for spells repeated in multiple sources.

There is plenty of reason to exclude that tag. The vast majority of spells that have the (object) tag are so tagged because they -only- affect objects. There's no way to parse the filter for corner cases like disintegrate which, BTW, is fort partial, not negated by a save, which would've disincluded it from the search in the first place.

1) I didn't say harmless was a made metric, I said (object) is.

2) (object) doesn't mean that you can't target creatures at all. If it were true that most paladin object spells don't affect creatures, then that would be stated in the target line, if you want to sort by target, that's fine, because that is relevant, not the (object) tag.

3) If you don't include partial save effects, then your criteria is even more flawed. Since the difference between something that kills or denies actions on a failed save and provides a minor penalty on a successful save is basically the same as any save negates spell.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Who gains:

A. Wizards, clerics, and druids etc.
1. now can use their lower level spell slots for attack spells and still have effective DCs.
2. now can use metamagic such as empower spell without the drawback of a lower DC. Playground groupthink is that blasting is suboptimal anyway but this unambiguously makes it better--especially at the mid levels. A 10th level wizard tossing a 15d6 empowered fireball with a 15+Int bonus DC and whose backup regular fireballs also have a 15+spell level DC is doing a lot better than he is under the core rules.
3. Even wizards who use buffs get a boost. Their low level attack spells are better. If using those low level slots for buffs is still better than using them for attack spells, they can still do so. If they decide to use attack spells in those slots it's because doing so makes them better.
B. Partial casters such as bards and hexblades--but mostly bards. Hexblades, paladins, and rangers probably don't have the spellcasting stats to have effective DCs even if they don't have to deal with a DC disadvantage from lower level spells. Bards can have the charisma to be effective spellcasters and inspire greatness grants extra HD which will be a stealth DC boost under this system.
C. Multiclassed spellcasters. The fighter/wizard or cleric/rogue will have slightly higher DCs. However, this probably doesn't make much of a difference since action economy and more MAD means they probably will stick to buffs and no-save spells anyways.
D. Monsters with class levels. Are you laughing at the hill giant wizard with his non-associated class levels? The joke's on you when his giant HD add to the DC of his cone of cold (and more so if he took practiced spellcaster to get caster level higher than class level too).

Who loses
A. Characters who need to make saves against spells and spell like abilities on a regular basis. Most spellcasters in adventures and bestiaries (including spell like abilities) do not devote all of their highest level spell slots to offensive spells. Often there will be one or two of those, several pre-cast buffs, and a variety of lower level spells and spell-like abilities which might be good in some situations but have low DCs. Under this rule, all of those low-DC attack spells they have become viable options so rather than having one or two top-shelf attacks and a variety of situational but less powerful attacks, the NPCs have a full arsenal of top-shelf attacks.

Do you really expect me to believe that:
A. no one is going to want spell focus or a similar ability under such a system?

So is it a good idea? I don't think so. It is a simplification, but it boosts the characters who are generally thought to be most powerful (other than the bard), doesn't do much for other characters, and gives a huge boost to enemies with class levels or spell-like abilities.

[Kelb_Panthera]

1) I didn't say harmless was a made metric, I said (object) is.

I disagree.


2) (object) doesn't mean that you can't target creatures at all. If it were true that most paladin object spells don't affect creatures, then that would be stated in the target line, if you want to sort by target, that's fine, because that is relevant, not the (object) tag.

I never said that (object) meant you can't target creatures -but- the vast majority of such spells, indeed, can't. Corelation does not equal causation. The database can't sort by target line, presumably because that line has too much variance to be a useful search criteria.


3) If you don't include partial save effects, then your criteria is even more flawed. Since the difference between something that kills or denies actions on a failed save and provides a minor penalty on a successful save is basically the same as any save negates spell.

False equivalence. Every little bit counts and many spells that have some effect on a passed save are quite nice -because- of that feature. Take entangle for example: even if you pass -every- save you get while you're in the area, it still halves your move speed. Or downdraft: you still plummet 50ft on a passed save. Every blasting spell that offers a save still does damage on a passed save. Some spells that offer a save that -doesn't- negate the effect do leave a rather lack-luster partial effect but even that partial effect keeps it from being a wasted action in the same way as a spell that is outright negated on a save. Don't go nirvana fallacy on this. Just because an effect is less than perfectly effective doesn't make it a waste of time.

Besides, this is all but a moot point on partial casters because they -don't- offer many attack spells that offer a save at all because the designers knew that such spells would be resisted most of the time. Making that tiny segment of their spell list more viable doesn't effect those classes to nearly the extent the proposed change makes the large swathes of such spells full casters have into spells that remain viable for their whole career rather than just at and near the levels at which they become available. Unless you add many more such spells to the partial casters' lists the point remains that this is a tiny boost for them and a huge boost for the casters that don't need the help.

[daremetoidareyo]

This fixes the assassin's deathstrike DC. This makes any Class ability that scales only with its own class levels be better. That means prestige dipping is a bit different, as many prestige classes introduce a cool ability at level one so that each level of the class scales the ability up. With this permutation, many prestige classes will be dipped for a single level. Assassin, cabinet trickster, and many others are so much better as 1 level dips.

There are a lot of DCs from early 3.5 late 3.0 that are static, touch of golden ice for example...Dragon compendium prestige classes suddenly seem....... less unappealing. OOze master's save DCs suddenly scale!

[Beheld]

I never said that (object) meant you can't target creatures -but- the vast majority of such spells, indeed, can't. Corelation does not equal causation. The database can't sort by target line, presumably because that line has too much variance to be a useful search criteria.

Yes, corellation does not equal causation. Which is why when you exclude all (object) spells because the "correlate" with spells that don't effect creatures (allegedly, according to you, without having looked them all up) means that since the tag does not cause them to not effect creatures, you will ignore spells that do effect creatures.


False equivalence. Every little bit counts and many spells that have some effect on a passed save are quite nice -because- of that feature. Take entangle for example: even if you pass -every- save you get while you're in the area, it still halves your move speed. Or downdraft: you still plummet 50ft on a passed save. Every blasting spell that offers a save still does damage on a passed save. Some spells that offer a save that -doesn't- negate the effect do leave a rather lack-luster partial effect but even that partial effect keeps it from being a wasted action in the same way as a spell that is outright negated on a save. Don't go nirvana fallacy on this. Just because an effect is less than perfectly effective doesn't make it a waste of time.

You are the one claiming that save for partial spells are spells the partial casters don't care about whether they are made or missed. That is the false equivalence. Just because Disintegrate has a small effect on a made save doesn't change that the Duskblade would really much rather you fail the save.


Besides, this is all but a moot point on partial casters because they -don't- offer many attack spells that offer a save at all

So the conclusion you set out to provide evidence for by looking at spells is true because before you look at the spells, just make it a premise... Sure.

[atemu1234]

Dragon compendium prestige classes suddenly seem....... less unappealing.

I'm confused by this one.

A) They weren't that appealing to begin with.
B) Why are they less so now?

[frogglesmash]

I'm confused by this one.

A) They weren't that appealing to begin with.
B) Why are they less so now?

You've got it backwards.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yes, corellation does not equal causation. Which is why when you exclude all (object) spells because the "correlate" with spells that don't effect creatures (allegedly, according to you, without having looked them all up) means that since the tag does not cause them to not effect creatures, you will ignore spells that do effect creatures.

Of the 7 spells (repeats removed) so tagged for the paladin 0 affect creatures. For the ranger's 2, 0 effect creatures. 2 for hexblade, both object only. The sohei has -no- spells tagged with (object). The duskblade has 3; shout, disintegrate, and dimension door and the last of those isn't an attack. Bard has 19 and only 4 of those are attacks. Adept has one that isn't an attack. That's five attack spells available to partial casters that are tagged with (object) in their save line.

Of the 31 on the cleric list, 1 is an attack. Of the 55 on the sorcerer/wiz list, only 12 are attacks. Have I made my point yet?


You are the one claiming that save for partial spells are spells the partial casters don't care about whether they are made or missed. That is the false equivalence. Just because Disintegrate has a small effect on a made save doesn't change that the Duskblade would really much rather you fail the save.

There are a dozen ranger spells that are save for partial or save for half. Only 32 of the 116 that are negated by a save aren't also marked as harmless. Most of the rest of the ranger list (361 in total) don't have the save line in the description at all or are marked explicitly as offering no save.

The paladin list; 287 spells total, 73 are explicitly no save, 92 negates (harmless), 3 save for partial, 8 are save for half (2 attacks), the rest are either save line excluded or some variant on see text or special.

I'd go on but I'm sure the pattern is beginning to show. The duskblade is the only partial caster who will care seriously about having improved saves and barely then since most of his spells are being delivered by sword-stroke as bonus damage. Everyone else was already going around them without issue anyway.




So the conclusion you set out to provide evidence for by looking at spells is true because before you look at the spells, just make it a premise... Sure.

This wasn't a thing that should've needed proving. Anyone that's played these classes knows that there are few spells that offer saves on their lists and fewer still that aren't strong regardless (entangle) or can't be cast in such a way as to make their save moot (putting silence on a tanglefoot bag instead of trying to cast it directly on a foe, for example).

The proposed change does very little for these classes and is immensely powerful for the full casters. It's a bad change, taken by itself.

[Sayt]

The thing that occurs to me immediately, is that it makes a Bard's illusions harder to disbelieve in-chassis.

And honestly, this is what I'd use for item-generated spell effects, because honestly, there are some really conceptually cool items that fall apart because the DC is generated using the minimum possible ability modifier to cast the spell effect, meaning that often, by the time you've gotten the item, it's completely useless